3/26/2007

Have any of you actually seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle?” – the British documentary that debunks “An Inconvenient Truth” and the global warming fear mongers?

Do yourself a favor. Set aside 75 minutes to watch this vital program from one of numerous video sharingsites across the Internet. (If you are guilt ridden over copyright concerns, I can only say that it is your loss if you still wish to be as informed as possible over the global warming non-debate debate.)

It traces how current global warming theory got started and explains the evidence showing that it is actually global warming that causes increased CO2 – not the other way around. After considering the program’s claims, go ahead and (re)read the U.N.’s current summary on the issue and ask yourself what it has really shown.

Purveyors of man-made global warming theory refuse to recognize that some of thestrongestcritics of the theory are lead authors of the IPCC reports that they have come to fetishize. A number of them are featured in the documentary. (It also debunks the argument that all of the critics are simply on the payroll for big oil. There is little media scrutiny concerning the billions that are now behind research that is specifically tailored to try and legitimize global warming theory.)

As long as they show this program in schools, then I would be fine with showing “An Inconvenient Truth” and any other global warming documentary they want to try and rebut it.

Will Jonathan Chait have the guts to watch it and comment directly on it? I doubt it. If we follow Chait’s logic then, it must be proof that Democrats simply don’t believe in science.

But it will be fun to watch the religious zealots come out of the woodwork again to post comments here taking me to task for “refusing to believe settled science”. Grab some popcorn and observe their hyperventilations. And yes, you read the title of this post correctly – This is only part 1 of a contuning series. There will be future posts to also help bring forth the Pavlovian green spittle. Cheers!

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. This seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown.

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that must run unconstrained by observations for decades to thousands of years. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal about the mechanisms of climate to be learnt from models. With effort, all of this ambiguity is explicable to the public.

In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous – because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important – diametrically opposite to the point I was making – which is that global warming is both real and threatening.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of “polemics”. There is nothing in the communication we had that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value – a great error.

As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out homeowner’s protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc.How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? Answers, even at this mundane level, are not obvious.

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions – will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidise insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would like to be able to provide them.

Scientifically, we can recognise the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this ambiguity and complexity. The outcome is sad.

…it is actually global warming that causes increased CO2 – not the other way around.

Well, since it’s rather basic chemistry to “deduce” that increased burning of fossil fuels will result in increased production of CO2 (and somewhat more involved science to show that CO2 levels are pretty much cumulative), I just gotta wonder what they are trying to prove with this claim.

Sure, you can obfuscate cause and effect (did the tires make the skid marks, or did the skid marks grab the tires?), but it’s just silly in the end.

There is considerable historical evidence that CO2 levels are abnormally high, and haven’t been this high for a long long time, perhaps millions of years.

NOW, the real, unresolved, question is this: SO WHAT?

What does CO2 have to do with temperature? Not clear. The observed historical CO2 levels and the observed the observed average temperatures do not seem to correlate well. Maybe there’s a trend, maybe not — it looks as through something else is having a significant effect and that something else is NOT CO2, and probably not man-made.

And, if the primary cause of the warming is not man-made, what (if anything) can we do about it and should we? If this much CO2 has only a small effect on temperature, then great big reductions in CO2 will do what? Very little? It would be good to know before we go to all this bother.

This is where the scientific debate is. But asserting that burning coal and fossil fuels — which are AT LEAST 75% carbon by weight — in an oxygen atmosphere, does not produce CO2 is just know-nothing blather. Might as well be asserting that children come from storks or that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Now I personally think the scientist is full of it and that Sun-heat-cycles drive climate and carbon levels rise as a latent (after the fact) indicator when temperatures rise, and does not in fact significantly warm the globe. And the science supports me.

Yet… there appear to be some questions about the honesty of this particular film, aren’t there?

Kevin. I did not mean to imply that burning fossil fuels does not create CO2, merelyt that it is not the primary cause of our current CO2 levels. Beyond that side note, I have no problems with your observations.

You are obviously correct in saying that burning fossil fuels produces CO2. What is not automatic from that statement is:
1. Is the amount of CO2 from fossil fuel burning a significant amount of total atmospheric CO2?
2. Is CO2 a/the significant factor in any global warming that does exist?

Also, the fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2 is not necessarily the opposite of the claim,
“…it is actually global warming that causes increased CO2 – not the other way around.”
That claim has to do with what is observed in the overall system. To assume this statement is wrong is to already assume that increased CO2 is the major cause of global warming.

In Gore’s movie (which I have not seen, for honesty in reporting) I understand he shows some graphs where the earth temperature and atmospheric CO2 content are plotted out, with the overall impression that historically the CO2 increases before global temperature does, which does not prove causality but is a clear association.
HOWEVER, if the graphs were correctly labeled over identical time periods one would see that in actuality the CO2 increases are seen AFTER the global warming events.

This is per testimony from “the fellow from Australia who came to testify before the Congessional committee” in Dec 06.

Gotta go, jack is going to stop global warming in the western US from suitcase nucs…

So the bottom line is that Wunsch didn’t like the way the documentary portrayed his comments. Fair enough. But then he explicitly confirms the fact that there is no scientific proof for man-made global warming, only mere supposition.

I quote one expert: Carl Wunch. You give a link to something else by him but don’t quote him so I’ll do it for you::

“Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.”

Justin Levine, what scientific degree do you have? I’m curious to know because you claim to know certainly that scientific investigation concludes false notions about global warming. It is astounding at how in one fell swoop you can denigrate the validity of scientific research in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil and environmental engineering, physics, atmospheric sciences, and oceanic sciences, among others. One need not be a “religious zealot” to realize your ignorance regarding the matter.

This is my major concern: lay people do not sufficiently understand science. Reading an introductory high school science text will introduce one to the scientific method (based largely on the Socratic method of thinking). It would be great if most lay people at least understood that and how it is used in scientific investigation. The scientific method, which is what most global warming scientific investigation is based on, assumes no conclusions without experiment. Simply explained, a natural phenomenon (melting of glaciers) is observed, a hypothesis (an educated guess) as to the origin of the natural phenomenon is posited, an experiment is designed (which may or may not prove the validity of the hypothesis), and conclusions are obtained. Scientists don’t just run around screaming the “sky is falling”. That phrase originates from no scientific investigation, only pure conjecture based on one’s gut feeling.

Your comments showed only political admonishments which try to disprove scientifically accepted concepts. It’s much like saying that cancer is only a figment of a person’s imagination, when there is plenty of scientific evidence proving its existence and scientists are in agreement with its existence. Today scientists are concerned with cancer treatment than to prove its existence.

What seems likely is that there is something else going on. For example, it’s possible that short-term dip in global temperatures that had it’s low circa 1500 (“the little ice age”) began ending in the 1800’s and temperatures rose. This does not cause, nor is it caused by, CO2. Separate matter, for separate reasons, cause unknown.

However, that doesn’t let anyone off the hook, as it remains possible (some say highly likely, Gore says certain) that the continuing rise in temperature is no longer natural, but tied to human activity.

What to do?

1) We can do nothing and hope it goes away.

2) We can let Gore stampede us into some stupid thing — like him as Earth King and Savior. That does seem to be what he’s shooting for.

3) Or, we can calmly look at what we are doing and what we can change. As individuals, first. As a society, next. Use less power if possible. How hard is it to replace hall lights and outside lights with flourescent? The payback is measured in weeks. It actually will save you money within a year.

Stop burning coal. Build lots of nuclear plants. Install solar in warm climates. Figure out how to build cars without needing hydrocarbons (electric or electric-made like hydrogen). These are good ideas for other reasons (e.g. air quality) anyway.

Gore’s a fool, sure. I wish he’s STFU. No one wants a self-appointed Messiah. But that doesn’t mean that there’s no problem here.

For all the global warming proponents, what is the correct global temperature and how did you come to this conclusion?

What exactly is a “global warming proponent”? Someone who argues in favor of warming the globe?

As a dispassionate scientist, I can say that there’s no “correct” global temperature just as there’s no “correct” global atmosphere. The environment on Earth is no more correct or incorrect than the environment on any other planet. Nonetheless, as the product of many millions of years of evolution on this planet, I can also say pretty firmly that neither of us would be happy with a sudden move to Mars.

To put that another way, it’s not a change in global climate that’s necessarily bad, but a change that occurs faster than humans or other species can possibly adapt. Under the rapid global warming scenarios that currently appear likely, humans will experience massive suffering from floods, droughts, and rising sea levels, along with widespread starvation due to disruptions in agriculture. Other species will experience massive extinctions due to habitat loss and changes in food sources.

It’s all very comparable to the sudden extinction that ended the Cretaceous era some 65 million years ago. In that event, a massive comet or meteorite hit the earth and threw up a dust cloud, leading to temperature changes that killed off roughly 70 percent of the plant and animal species that existed on the planet. Was the temperature before the impact more “correct” than the temperature afterwards? I can’t say that it was, but I’ll bet that the dinosaurs didn’t enjoy the change.

Evolution will make sure that the temperature is “correct” in the long run, but it’s madness that we’re not doing more to prevent the suffering that will affect our children and grandchildren here in the 21st century. And it’s particularly insane that people are refusing to acknowledge the overwhelming body of scientific evidence simply because they don’t like Al Gore.

Justin Levine, what scientific degree do you have? I’m curious to know because you claim to know certainly that scientific investigation concludes false notions about global warming. It is astounding at how in one fell swoop you can denigrate the validity of scientific research in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil and environmental engineering, physics, atmospheric sciences, and oceanic sciences, among others. One need not be a “religious zealot” to realize your ignorance regarding the matter.

This is my major concern: lay people do not sufficiently understand science. Reading an introductory high school science text will introduce one to the scientific method (based largely on the Socratic method of thinking). It would be great if most lay people at least understood that and how it is used in scientific investigation. The scientific method, which is what most global warming scientific investigation is based on, assumes no conclusions without experiment. Simply explained, a natural phenomenon (melting of glaciers) is observed, a hypothesis (an educated guess) as to the origin of the natural phenomenon is posited, an experiment is designed (which may or may not prove the validity of the hypothesis), and conclusions are obtained. Scientists don’t just run around screaming the “sky is falling”. That phrase originates from no scientific investigation, only pure conjecture based on one’s gut feeling.

Could you be more specific? Please name one or two of these “stupid things” that Gore is trying to “stampede” us into doing. Give us direct quotes from Gore’s movie or Gore’s book or Gore’s testimony before Congress to show us what you mean.

Oregonian – Your first mistake is refering to yourself as “a dispassionate scientist”. This is a very subtle but completely disingenuous way of saying “you are biased, but I am not, therefore there is no need to prove or debate anything”. You need to lay off that nonsense if you hope to prove anything to people. It doesn’t matter if you are so-called “scientist” or not. If it did matter, then why bother to make your point about Al Gore (who is obviously not a scientist). But that also begs the question – If the “scientific community” believes that man-made global warming exists, why would they allow its chief spokesperson to be a partisan politician? Would you trust Karl Rove to explain the “science” behind the medical risks of abortion? Probably not – even if what he states can be backed up by science to some degree. Rove would be damaged goods in relation to that specific topic. Al Gore is as well. If you don’t realize that, then it is proof that you are not a “dispassionate scientist” at all, but merely a leftist political hack.

AF – “Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.”

Don’t tempt me into using this quite to transition into a discussion about foreign policy, the Iraq war, and weapons of mass destruction….Or does it only apply to public policies that have traditionally alligned themselves with left wing causes?

“Don’t tempt me into using this quite to transition into a discussion about foreign policy, the Iraq war, and weapons of mass destruction….”

o… oo… oooo ooo ooooooohhhh please… lets just do that.
You get your data from right wing drink tanks and I get mine from people who read books and speak more than one language. Oh please lets go there. I get probabilities, you get paranoia.

When I observe Al Gore and his ilk living their lives as if they believe we must act to reduce carbon emissions instead of selling “carbon offsets” to each other, I’ll start evaluating how I live my life. By the way, I have some carbon offsets for sale. For 50 bucks a month, I won’t fire up my barbque grill this summer.

Al Gore’s perosnal lifestyle is irrelevent. I only mention him to point out that nobody would pick him as a spokesperson if they were really serious in proving a scientific claim (just as I think it would be equally as stupid to use Karl Rove to speak about the scientific benefits of nuclear power). The only ax I intent to grind concerns unproven suppositions regarding the global warming debate, and the fact that one side refuses to debate it by simply declaring a non-existent “consensus” and that the “debate is over” when in fact it never took place.

J Levine,
I’m neither as cynical nor as stupid as you are. Many people aren’t.
I’m no saint, and unlike some liberals I don’t pretend to be. What I am is a left-wing realist. I don’t like George Soros because I don’t like billionaires… any of them
got me?

There is no proof, or even a good argument, that rising temperatures are bad. Rather the reverse – we know that in past warm times the world had much larger and better growing seasons.

You are short sighted, self centered, power hungry people. Short sighted in that you always respond violently to the stimulus of the moment. Self centered in that you think a warm summer in your town, or a photo of a bear on a piece of ice are ‘evidence’ solely on the basis of your personal feelings. Power hungry in that every thing you ever do, think, feel, breathe, eat or sleep is directed at the glory of telling others what to do and how to do it and making them comply.

For God’s sake sit down shut up and let the grown ups study the issue for a few more decades. And please do not prattle about the irreversible tipping point. Every time you leftoids want something it’s always either ‘spend big bucks now to save me money later’ (much, much later) or ‘we must act now, now, sooner than now or the world will end. The sea levels will rise and we’re all gonna die.’

Nobody believes that crud anymore.

The abiding fault of the right is the lust for money, that of the left is the lust for power. I’ll work on the money thing, ok, but please look in the mirror and try to recognize and deal with that crazy, crazy need to order people around and solve their problems.

Where is ‘king log’ when we need him? The ancient Greeks understood this and you seem not to. I hope you can learn.

—The only ax I intent to grind concerns unproven suppositions regarding the global warming debate, and the fact that one side refuses to debate it by simply declaring a non-existent “consensus” and that the “debate is over” when in fact it never took place.—

No. It took place. You linked to o-n-e expert and didn’t even bother to quote him. I quoted him twice (read the above). Wunsch is wary of the oversimplifications of politics and you’re capable of nothing else. You’re like the mathematically illiterate card counter who says “Trust me, I can beat the house. Just give me $500″
No one who can count to 10 would do it.
What are the odds you’re right? What are the odds half a million people aren’t dead in Iraq?
Answer: Not good, son. Not good.

Not to give too much credit to Al Gore, who annoys me, but you got attitude but not much else.

Regarding # 26. I certainly do “get you”. I think most people reading your comments “get you” as well. Thank you for exposing yourself to the public. I suspect that you are typical of those who propound the man-made global warming theory. ‘Nuff said.

It’s interesting that Carl Wunch views ocean rise as the chief negative of a warmer world. His concern for beachfront property is touching.
But in the real world, overpriced luxury items such as beachhouses, are the most expendable commodities. Nobody really lives there, they only visit when the weather is right, and every last one of them are affuent with the ability to move at a moments notice. An ocean that rises a millimeter a year isn’t going to sneak up on you.

Oregonian, a warmer planet didn’t kill the dinosaurs. You have it exactly backward. Seems like an unbiased scientist should have know this, but whatever…

Oregonian, a warmer planet didn’t kill the dinosaurs. You have it exactly backward.

Did I say that a warmer planet killed the dinosaurs? (Show us that quote if you can.)

It was a sudden change in climate that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and we’re now producing a comparable climate shift of our own. It will probably take 100 years to see the full effects, but that’s hardly more than a single day on the evolutionary scale of things.

It is getting funny to watch the enviro-whackos as they ratchet up the rhetoric to more and more apocalyptic. Like the point about CO2, the temperature rising causes CO2 to rise, you can prove it by looking past your nose and into the past. Why did the last ice age melt? Dinos in SUVs, no wait, the Dinos were gone, it must have been those saber tooth togers driving them around. So the temperature was going up, the CO2 was …

New dinosaur species ceased to originate around the K-T boundary; the question is, were they killed off (implying causation, especially a catastrophe), or were they not evolving and simply fading away (perhaps implying gradual environmental change)?

There was global climatic change; the environment changed from a warm, mild one in the Mesozoic to a cooler, more varied one in the Cenozoic. The cause of this climate change, and the speed at which it proceeded, are the major concerns of both schools of thought

.
Your claim we are producing “a comparable climate shift” is silly. Radiometric dating is good to plus or minus a few 100,000 years.

Right you didn’t say warming killed the dinosaur, you used the catch all crap phrase climate change,which doesn’t mean anything at all. “To put that another way, it’s not a change in global climate that’s necessarily bad, but a change that occurs faster than humans or other species can possibly adapt.”
What a load of hogwash. Even if every single thing that the IPCC says will happen came true, it wouldn’t be faster then humans or anything else could addapt to. So the temperature bumps up a degree, this is going to hurt how?
CO2 is good for plantlife. Boing.
More rainfall is good for plants and animals. Strike two.
A more temperate climate will cause more diversity of fawna in mountain regions allowing critters to more readily find food. Strike three.
There is no downside to “rapid global warming”.
It almost makes me wish we could heat up the planet by driving around in cars. But of course the worlds thermostat is that big bright glowing yellow thing, and we have no control over it whatsoever.

Under the rapid global warming scenarios that currently appear likely
Dude you have to do some reading, the IPCC re- evaluated their forecast. Even their most daunting prognostications only claim a 5 degree rise over the next hundred years, and they are 90% sure it will be less then that.humans will experience massive suffering from floods, droughts,
Don’t need an oracle or a crystal ball to know that will happen. So it has been since the beginning of time. and rising sea levels, along with widespread starvation due to disruptions in agriculture.
Ah Mr. Doom-n-Gloom, so you think enhanced CO2 atmosphere, and increased rainfall, coupled with an extended growing season equals “disruptions in agriculture”? Your an idiot.“Other species will experience massive extinctions due to habitat loss and changes in food sources.”
I wonder what sort of exotic species will find mild winters, and abundant food and water detrimental to their health? Perhaps you could point to one.

Astutebloggers point to a paper that reports on the CO2 levels in the Northern Hemisphere, 1920-1961. It’s a real problem for the GW adherents, becaus the nice slow rise graphs of CO2 are false. 1935-1945, for instance, the CO2 levels in the Northern Hemisphere were in excess of 370ppm, significantly above today’s level. And this is based on actual measurements of the CO2 levels, not estimates.

Global warming is a fruad and a hoax being used by unscruplous persons RADICAL ENVIROMENTALISTS,LEFT-WING POLITICIANS,UNERHANDED SO CALLED SCIENTISTS, and other sinister persons like AL GORE and the supporters of world goverment

Papertiger, I enjoyed your post (particularly the “your [sic] an idiot” bit) but I noticed that you didn’t include any links to back it up. Perhaps it will be easier to face the facts if they come from the friendly face of Fox News:

Global Warming Report to Warn of Drought
Saturday , March 10, 2007

The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won’t have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

…

The report included these likely results of global warming:

– Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

– Death rates for the world’s poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

– Europe’s small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent’s large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe’s plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

– By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming’s effects.

– About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

Something else bothers me about that report. It claims that Central America and Africa will be the most affected.
More hogwash. Central America and Africa already have high temperatures due to being located on the Equator. And the living is easy. They have aboriginal people who live their whole lives as naked hunter gatherers. Further, due to their climate the tropics are the most biodiverse regions on the planet.
I might use the wrong form of “your”, but you’re still an idiot.

Leviticus, you should know, given your name and all, but can we eat polar bears if we are Jewish? Are those great white buggers unclean or what? I mean if they’re going all extinct and whatnot, I say why waste them? I mean, let’s waste them then eat them.

As for being a public spokesman, yahoo, when do I start, I accept, send money ASAP, I assume there’s a salary or is this another leftist something for nothing trick?

Could you be more specific? Please name one or two of these “stupid things” that Gore is trying to “stampede” us into doing. Give us direct quotes from Gore’s movie or Gore’s book or Gore’s testimony before Congress to show us what you mean.

Uh, ok:

Al Gore:

it should be understood for what it is: a planetary emergency that now threatens human civilization on multiple fronts.

And:

Right now, the political environment in the country does not support the range of solutions that have to be introduced. The maximum you can imagine coming out of the current political environment still falls woefully short of the minimum that will really solve the crisis.

I’m neither as cynical nor as stupid as you are. Many people aren’t.
I’m no saint, and unlike some liberals I don’t pretend to be. What I am is a left-wing realist. I don’t like George Soros because I don’t like billionaires… any of them
got me?

Could someone else here explain probability to our friend Ace?
I don’t have the patience.

Comment by AF

In other words:
You can’t explain or defend what you pasted.
Nor can you explain why a scientist has the credentials to expound on particulars of political science, public policy and legislation, which obviously is outside his area of expertise.

Doug your link which makes the claim
“On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.“, is repeating the discredited “scientific consensus” meme.

The “consensus” is the meta study by Naomi Oreskes who claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change” for the years 1993 – 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a “scientific consensus on climate change.” The truth is, there is no such thing.

Perhaps this is the reason for the ugency and talk of branding reasonable people as ‘climate deniers’. It is a scam to rush the world into irreversable actions based on faulty information before the error is discovered.
Liberals tried to abort the debate.
Let’s go ahead and have it now, what you say?

Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction.

See now here is the problem. We have all this talk about CO2 levels and historic trends. The AGW crowd is basing it all on ice core samples.
I’m no unbiased scientist but it seems to me if you want to know about the temperature you look at the thermometer and base your judgements on the need for cold weather gear on that.
What the IPCC did, in regard to CO2 levels, is ignored the thermometer and instead measured the depth of prairie dog burrows to gauge the temperature.

Discredited?
Ok, Here’s some comments on Benny Peiser who wrote that quote above:

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928 papers in refereed scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the scientific consensus: that humans are responsible for most of the warming in the last few decades. Benny Peiser disputed this, claiming that 34 of them rejected or doubted the consensus. I asked him for his list of 34 and posted it. It was obvious that there was only paper in his list that rejected the consensus and not only was that paper not peer-reviewed it was from the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists).
Despite this, Peiser insisted that he was correct.continue reading, it gets worse

Oreskes asserted that none of the papers rejected the consensus position (anthropogenic climate change). Peiser asserts that these 34 reject or doubt the consensus position. Note that Peiser added “or doubt” to the category so it is logically possible for both of them to be correct. So, judge for yourselves by looking at the abstracts. I want to see what my readers think so leave a comment giving your count for how many “reject” and how many “reject or doubt” the consensus. (Yes, there are only 33 abstracts.)

“zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…”
If you’d read the links deuce, you would have seen the answer to your comment #67, you dumb fuck.

Peiser [PDF]:
“In my original critique of Prof Oreskes’ study, I used the *same ISI database and the same
key words* as Oreskes but used *all documents* listed therein. Prof Oreskes did not
specify the method she applied in her study, and only later confirmed that she had limited
her search to “articles”, while I included “all document types” in my initial assessment. This
difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the “928” abstracts Oreskes claims
to have analysed and the 1117 documents I found and considered.”

I don’t want to get involved in this debate as it seems to be getting kind of nasty, but there are a few issues that I think I can clear up. In the original Oreskes paper in Science she says that she searched for “climate change” on ISI. However, if you do this exact search, over 11,000 items are found. In actuality, it appears that the search term that was really used was “global climate change”, and when combined with search limit for ‘articles’ only, this produces 916 hits on ISI. I’m not sure why the discrepancy between 916 and 928, but it’s close enough for government work. I also don’t know why the original science article has the incorrect search term, but it’s possible that it was an editorial error.

Could someone else here explain probability to our friend Ace?
I don’t have the patience.

Comment by AF

In other words:
You can’t explain or defend what you pasted.
Nor can you explain why a scientist has the credentials to expound on particulars of political science, public policy and legislation, which obviously is outside his area of expertise.

Don’t worry, it’s clear why you can’t answer.

Hmmm. While I generally agree with you on the topic, Ace, I wouldn’t have the patience to answer you either. You don’t encourage patience. You are too, umm, combative. If you were arguing that the Earth was flat I wouldn’t have the patience either. A desire not to interact with you probably has very little to do with the relative merits of the arguments and lot to do with how unpleasant you make the process.

“You’re dragging down the level of debate on the site for everyone.”
The debate is what it is, Pat. I just get frustrated by it sometimes. This place is an ocean of petty insults, to people I like, or at the very least take seriously. People here insult them in their absence. I return to favor to you in person.
Still, it’s your house.
Maybe you can explain probability to your friends.

And Ace spend some time here http://climatesci.colorado.edu/.
You quoted the beginning of one piece on the page, Read over 5 or 6. Read the one on top of the page. it’s written by Pielke.
You might want to read this too. I’m not intimidated by complexity, I’m just bored by vulgarity.

Since the fall of the hockey stick the prophets of doom and gloom have relied on climate models of dubious value. In climate models “climate sensitivity” is the expected temperature change from a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The effect of a doubling of CO2 alone (no feedbacks) is about 1 degree C, which is not in dispute. All the models assume that increases in CO2 will result in an increase in water vapor (the main green house gas) resulting in a larger increase in temperature. The problem with this assumption, and it is an assumption, is that water vapor is the stuff clouds are made of.

Clouds can act as a positive feedback by reducing the amount of energy that escapes to space. One would easily notice this on a cloudy night. Clouds can also act as a negative feedback by reflecting incoming solar radiation. It is obvious that none of the current climate models have enough resolution to model clouds. The IPCC even admits that our understanding of clouds is very poor.

So why is water vapor assumed to be a positive feedback? Steve McIntyre went searching for the source of that assumption. As it turns out the assumption is based on climate models, not on physical evidence. In contrast, the Sky Experiment may prove to be one of the most important discoveries in climate science. It has the potential of derailing the conventional wisdom on climate change. It is an experiment, not based on inadequate models, but on real physical evidence.

AF claims that Peiser only found one abstract that questioned AGW, and that the one was written by oil company stooges.
From AF’s link all I have to produce is one critical abstract that isn’t written by AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists). But since finance and authorship might be inobvious, instead I will find two critical abstracts. Two abstracts make AF’s (and the author of his link’s) point worthless. Well alrighty.

1. Review and Impacts of Climate-change Uncertainties
Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW
Futures 25 (8): 850-863 Oct 1993
Abstract: This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record.

2. Cloud Condensation Nuclei
Hudson JG
Journal of Applied Meteorology 32 (4): 596-607 Apr 1993
Abstract: The state of knowledge of the particles upon which liquid droplets condense to form atmospheric water clouds is presented. The realization of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) as a distinct aerosol subset originated with the cloud microphysical measurements and theoretical insights of Patrick Squires 40 years ago. He helped originate and continue the development of CCN counters and made significant CCN measurements for more than 25 years. Recognition of the importance of CCN has expanded from warm-rain efficiency to aerosol scavenging, cloud radiative properties, and other topics. In spite of a promising beginning and much encouragement over the years, CCN knowledge has increased minimally. Significant uncertainties about global climate change cannot be reduced without expansion of the knowledge base of CCN

“Peisner is right. There was no consensus. It was a boogie man invented by a charlatan.”

Who’s the charlatan, Al Gore?. Is this whole thing his responsibility?
There is a debate among knowledgeable people about the extent of the impact of human actions on global warming. You’ve finally found that debate courtesy of Pielke. Until then your links have been to con men and axe grinders and paid up reps for the Petroleum Institute. But now you’ve linked to abstracts to publications from 1993?.

“I said, ‘John, I can’t do that,’ ” Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. “He said, ‘Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.'”

Gilchrest didn’t make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or science-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue. Republican moderates, called the Tuesday Group, invited Boehner to this week’s meeting to push for different representation.

The select committee’s purpose is to investigate and recommend ways to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce “emissions and other activities that contribute to climate change,” according to legislation that passed March 8 creating the committee. Some Republicans worry that restricting greenhouse gas emissions would have a negative effect on businesses.

Boehner’s spokesman Brian Kennedy said he doesn’t comment on the private conversations Boehner has with members of his conference, but “the only criteria set for potential members of the panel was that they must undertake a thorough review of the facts, the empirical data and the science to determine how Congress can craft the best possible legislation going forward.”

Gilchrest, who co-chairs the House Climate Change Caucus, has long been an environmental-protection advocate and has co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to 70 percent below 1990 levels.

He expressed his interest in the committee several times to Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, telling them the best thing they could do for Republican credibility was to appoint members familiar with the scientific data.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a research scientist from Maryland, and Michigan’s Rep. Vern Ehlers, the first research physicist to serve in Congress, also made cases for a seat, but weren’t appointed, he said.

“Roy Blunt said he didn’t think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming,” Gilchrest said. “Right there, holy cow, there’s like 9,000 scientists to three on that one.”

Between Gore and Boehner, I’ll go with Gore. You can pick what you want. Email Pielke. Ask him.
I’m done.

“Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.” — Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch

And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded – there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)

If all of these scientists believe that CO2 is the culprit then why haven’t any of them called for the removal of catalytic converters from vehicles?

Prior to catalytic converters, cars would produce 100 grams of pollutants per mile and that was cut to 2 grams per mile with catalytic converters. The missing 98 grams was converted into CO2 and they also calculate the weight of the oxygen as “exhaust” so you end up with a little under one pound per mile of CO2 produced by the catalytic process. At two trillion miles driven a year in the US, that would mean a billion tons of CO2 a year — all thanks to the catalytic converter.

Personally, I’ll take the CO2 over those other pollutants but the end of the world Warmist types should have to explain why they believe CO2 is preferable to non-converted exhaust.

You yourself set the criteria by saying that there was only one paper critical of AGW. I didn’t have to look far to find two. It was your own link. You could have read it, but instead you chose to use bluster and hope that nobody would look.
The least you could do is withdraw your claim that only oil company stooges doubt AGW.
If you did that you would be a more honest man then Al Gore.

Catalytic converters remove toxic chemicals (NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons) from auto exhaust. This is good because those chemicals have harmful effects on the body’s organs and tissues. CO2 is much safer to breathe.

No doubt, but it seems to me that a “pick your poison” discussion is missing within the Warming Community.

They would have to admit that the environmental solution to automobile exhaust created what they refer to as the biggest threat to mankind in human history. I don’t think they want to admit that.

By the Warmists’ own science, they would have to admit that pulling the catalytic converters off of automobiles would reverse global warming and actually start contributing a cooling factor.

There would be health problems due to the unconverted exhaust but we have survived it before and it seems to me that they would want to try it for a year or two to see what happens…if they were serious about all of this.

Doug
Only 13 of the abstracts endorced AGW, the rest of your 335 use the supposition that there will be an increase in CO2 to speculate on plant growth, and the like, experimentally.
So we have a ratio of 34 against to 13 in favor.
That is 73% implicitly against AGW.

Papertiger,
Did you miss AF’s link? Of Peiser’s 34, he himself admits that only one actually rejects (or doubts) anthropogenic global warming and that one was written for an oil industry publication and wasn’t peer reviewed.

Wade further through the comments at http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ where you found your initial cites, and you’ll see that all 34 are fairly discredited. Peiser himself joins in the comments and does not dispute that conclusion. The fact that all of this was discredited back in 2005 makes it all rather sad. The commenters even manage to replicate Oreskes’ sample and explain the difference between her sample size and Peiser’s if Ace is honestly interested in that supposed discrepancy. And for the benefit of Greg F. upstream, Motl is simply Peiser redux.

they would have to admit that pulling the catalytic converters off of automobiles would reverse global warming and actually start contributing a cooling factor.

I’ll play along. 2004 greenhouse gas emissions from transportation combustion were 1855.5 teragrams of CO2 equivalent (not all of which would be removed by disabling catalytic converters). Total emissions of GHG: 7074.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (All numbers are for US only.)

So taking all the cars off the road would reduce GHG emissions by 25%, which would slow but not reverse global warming.

Yes, there is a “pick your poison”-style trade-off, but that’s not unusual. For example, a reduction in acid rain-causing sulfate emissions also exacerbates global warming.

IMO, disabling catalytic converters would not be as worthwhile a mitigation strategy as increased fuel and energy efficiency in all sectors.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

*************************************************
But one of the largest malaria epidemics in the 20th Century was in Russia and one of the hardest hit areas was Arkhangelsk that’s close to the Arctic Circle.

The warming coincides exactly with the advent of catalytic converters. Before the cat-cons, we had global cooling.

The Kyoto treaty called for a 7% reduction of CO2 and the removal of cat-cons would reduce CO2 by much more than that.

If the Warmists really believed their own science, they would want to return to the 1940’s scenario which they claim caused extreme global cooling. Any negatives that would follow from this return to the 1940’s system would not be irreversible, as we already have learned.